Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Chandravati Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. , Revenue, Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to the opposite party no. 2-Consolidation Officer (Purana) for expeditious disposal of Case No. 65 of 2024, which is an application filed under Rule 109-A (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Rules, 1954 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Rules of 1954’), for execution of an order dated 24.04.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Nawabganj in Case No. 3939.
3. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. has raised a preliminary objection that the application under Rule 109-A has been filed after more than 30 years since passing of the alleged order dated 24.04.1993, a certified copy whereof has not been produced by the petitioner along with the application for execution of the order. The photocopy of the order dated 24.04.1993 filed alongwith the execution application is not admissible. In these circumstances, the photocopy of the irder dated 24.04.1993 prima facie appears to be forged. The orig
An order from a Consolidation Court cannot be enforced after a significant delay without a certified copy, especially post closure of consolidation operations.
The civil court's decree in an injunction suit cannot be enforced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.
The principle of res judicata and the requirement to challenge the initial order before filing a subsequent appeal were central to the court's decision.
Administrative authorities cannot recall judicial orders without due process, and principles of natural justice require a hearing before adverse actions affecting rights.
It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal ....
Procedural dismissals do not prevent merits of subsequent appeals, ensuring timely consideration based on applicable laws.
Legal proceedings initiated after the issuance of consolidation notifications are invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as outlined in Section 5(2), and proper filing o....
The failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence in title disputes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act violates principles of natural justice, allowing for judicial review under Articl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
